Micronaut Only Thread

This is a general forum for all types of posts related to Military models.

Moderators: dnichols, GHQ, Mk 1

Post Reply
fullmetaljacket
E5
Posts: 407
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 2:18 am
Location: Warsaw, Indiana

Post by fullmetaljacket »

Hello

Dougeagle nice planes or are they cvboill? I would like to know if you can post on here or PM the stands you use and the stands for the for the planes if you would thanks. Wanting to start a WW2 scenario in the pacfic and will have some land based and carrier based aircraft.

fullmetaljacket

dougeagle
E5
Posts: 726
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 10:07 am
Location: Northern Alberta

Post by dougeagle »

fullmetaljacket wrote:Hello

Dougeagle nice planes or are they cvboill? I would like to know if you can post on here or PM the stands you use and the stands for the for the planes if you would thanks. Wanting to start a WW2 scenario in the pacfic and will have some land based and carrier based aircraft.

fullmetaljacket
Nope...not my planes. They are cvobill's planes. I've was looking for pictures of them too really get and idea of what they are like.

I did my first solo playtest of GHQ rules. I only used 2 ships per side and only gunnery. Next step will be to try out gunnery and torpedoes. Then after that it will be with aircraft. All I can say is that after 3 solo playtests, I'm finding it to be a good set of rules...far be it that it's my first foray into WWII naval battles.
1st battle was just open sea with the Italians winning the battle. 2nd battle was with a small island, this time it was the British that won. 3rd battle was a string of 3 small islands ending up in a draw...British destroyer lost, light cruiser damaged...same thing for the Italians (light cruiser, destroyer).
Next time around I will include 3 destroyers per side, with torpedoes involved as well.
Now, back to making some bases and painting :D
Doug

A goal is not always meant to be reached, it often serves simply as something to aim at.
Bruce Lee

Mikee
E5
Posts: 145
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 3:32 am
Location: Oakland, CA

Post by Mikee »

I've been looking over the WWII British cruiser situation to see what cruisers have not been produced by GHQ yet. It looks to me like there could be a theoretical need for about eighteen different models to cover the missing cruisers, nine of them for unique units.

To begin with, there are three basic variants to the "C" class cruisers. The first group (Caledon, Calypso, Caradoc) were build with the #2 gun located aft of the bridge. The second group (Cardiff, Ceres, Coventry, Curacoa, Curlew) were built with #2 gun superfiring over #1 gun. The third group (Cairo, Calcutta, Capetown, Carlisle, Colombo) were similar to the second group, but were built with a trawler bow GHQ has produced one "C" Class variant, a CLAA with 4X2 - 4" guns 9UKN11). based on my limited information, I see eight variants among these three groups.

If I were in charge of producing 2400 scale British cruisers for GHQ, the following is the order in which they would be offered. What do you think?

1. Sheffield Class CL - 5 ships.
2. Calypso Class CL (w/ 5X1 - 6") - 2 ships. This is a group #1 ship, a unique G.B.
model.
3. Devonshire Class CA - 3 ships
4. Coventry Class CLAA (10X1 - 4") - 2 ships. A Group #2 "C"
5. Uganda class CL - 3 ships
6. York Class CA - 1 ship
7. Charybdis Class CLAA - 2 ships
8. Colombo Class CLAA (3X2 - 4") - 1 ship. This is a Group 3 "C" ; 1 of only 2 "Cs"
with 3 twin 4" guns.
9. Swiftsure Class CL - 3 or more ships. This is the late war class, initially projected
to consist of 8 units, but as far as I know only 3 were built to the original design.
10. Berwick Class CA - 2 ships
11. Cardiff Class CL (5X1 - 6") - 2 ships. A group 2 "C," with a different gun layout than
the Calypso CL.
12. Austraila Cl. CA - 1 ship
13. Emerald Cl. CL - 1 ship.
14. Kent Cl. CA - 1 ship. The last of the Br. CAs to be modeled.
15. Effingham Cl. CL - 1 ship

The next three could be substituted by one of the shops listed above;

16. Capetown CL (5X1 - 6"). this would be a Cardiff with the trawler bow.
17. Curacoa CLAA 4X2 - 4"). This would be a uKN11 without the trawler bow.
18. Caledon CLAA (3X1 - 4") - 1 ship. This might be similar to a Colombo.


Even if two are produced each year, thats a lot of years, and I don't know if it's commercially prudent for GHQ to do these all. Still, it would be nice. Any comments?

Donald M. Scheef
E5
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 2:24 am
Location: Waukegan, Illinois USA

Post by Donald M. Scheef »

Here is my response to Mikee’s list of WWII British cruiser wants. My list is in (approximate) time sequence of initial construction rather than order of preference. My first choice is the modified colony class Ceylon, Newfoundland, and Uganda (fifth on Mikee’s list) rather than Sheffield class (because I already have acceptable versions from CinC), but we don’t need to get into this sort of disagreement. “De gustibus non est disputandum.â€￾

• HMAS Adelaide was the sole surviving example of the WWI Birmingham class of light cruisers. By 1939 it had been modified from its initial appearance but was still archaic. I know of no model of this ship in 1/2400 scale that shows the WWII appearance.
• CL Calypso and Caradoc (Caledon class) are as described by Mikee. There were plans to convert both similar to Caledon, but circumstances intervened.
• CLAA Caledon was a mid-war conversion that included 40mm Bofors for local defense rather than the 2 pdrs used in early-war conversions. Unlike the later C-class conversions, the bridge had to be moved back to provide room for the superimposed 4â€￾ mount. Its armament and overall appearance was similar to that of HMS Colombo. I would use a model of either to represent both.
• CL Cardiff and Ceres (Ceres class) are as described by Mikee. There were plans to convert both similar to Curacoa, but circumstances intervened.
• CLAA Coventry and Curlew (Ceres class) are as described by Mikee. These were pre-war conversions with 10 (later 8) single 4â€￾ guns rather than the twin 4â€￾ of later conversions. They also carried an octuple 2-pdr mount, which was normally restricted to battleships and aircraft carriers.
• CLAA Curacoa (Ceres class) is as described by Mikee. As an early-war conversion, it carried 2 pdrs (1 x 4 + 2 x 1) for local protection rather than the 40 mm Bofors of mid-war conversions.
• CL Capetown (Carlisle class) is as described by Mikee. There was a plan to convert it similar to Colombo, but this was never implemented.
• CLAA Colombo (Carlisle class) is as described by Mikee. This was a mid-war conversion similar to HMS Caledon.
• CLAA Delhi is an addition to Mikee’s list. In 1941 this ship was converted into an anti-aircraft cruiser at an American yard using US 5â€￾/38 guns in enclosed mounts. The conversion was considered successful and it was intended to convert the remainder of the D class in a similar way (or using twin 4â€￾ mounts in place of single 5â€￾ guns). I know of no 1/2400 model of this ship and conversion of GHQ’s UKN13 would be difficult.
• CL Effingham is as described by Mikee. This was a conversion of the Frobisher class heavy cruiser into a light cruiser (with a larger number of smaller but faster-firing guns). The main reason was to keep within treaty limitations on the number of heavy cruisers as the last of the county types came into commission. I know of no 1/2400 model of this ship and conversion of GHQ’s UKN12 would be difficult.
• CL Emerald is as described by Mikee. This would also cover the appearance of Enterprise before her conversion and, hypothetically, additional ships of this class that were cancelled at the end of WWI.
• I would include the fast minelayer HMS Adventure in a list of cruisers.
• CA Berwick and Cornwall (Kent class, 1936 refit) are as described by Mikee.
• CA Kent (1938 refit) is as described by Mikee.
• CA Australia (1939 refit) is as described by Mikee.
• CA Australia (late-war refit) is an addition to Mikee’s list. This was intended to increase anti-aircraft capability. It replaced ‘X’ turret with additional medium anti-aircraft guns, mostly 40 mm Bofors. I know of no 1/2400 model of this appearance.
• CA Devonshire, Shropshire, Suss*x (unmodified London class) are as described by Mikee. This would also represent HMS London before its rebuilding.
• CA Devonshire (late-war refit) is an addition to Mikee’s list. This was intended to increase anti-aircraft capability. It replaced ‘X’ turret with additional medium anti-aircraft guns, mostly 40 mm Bofors (in a different arrangement than that on HMAS Australia).
• CA Suss*x (late-war refit) is an addition to Mikee’s list. This was intended to increase anti-aircraft capability. It replaced ‘X’ turret with additional medium anti-aircraft guns, mostly 2 pdr pompoms.
• CA Norfolk (late-war refit) is an addition to Mikee’s list. This was intended to increase anti-aircraft capability. It replaced ‘X’ turret with additional medium anti-aircraft guns, mostly 2 pdr pompoms (in a different arrangement than that on HMS Suss*x).
• CA York is as described by Mikee.
• CL Southampton class / Sheffield class are as described by Mikee
• CLAA Charbdis and Scylla are as described by Mikee. Nominally part of the Dido class, they were completed with four twin 4â€￾ mounts because of a shortage of the planned five 5.25â€￾ mounts. Although seriously under-gunned for the traditional cruiser role, they proved excellent anti-aircraft escorts.
• CL Kenya (Fiji or colony class, late-war refit) is an addition to Mikee’s list. This was intended to increase anti-aircraft capability. It replaced ‘X’ turret with additional medium anti-aircraft guns, mostly 40 mm Bofors.
• CL Bermuda, Jamaica, and Mauritius (Fiji or colony class, late-war refit) are additions to Mikee’s list. These were intended to increase anti-aircraft capability. It replaced ‘X’ turret with additional medium anti-aircraft guns, mostly 2 pdr pompoms.
• CL Ceylon, Newfoundland, and Uganda (modified Fiji or modified colony class completed with only three triple 6â€￾ turrets and with additional light anti-aircraft guns in place of ‘X’ turret) are as in Mikee’s list.
• CL Swiftsure and Ontario are as described in Mikee’s list, except that there were only two ships completed in this class. The third ship is probably HMS Superb, which was a different class. These ships were similar to the Fiji class, but were built with a twin 4â€￾ anti-aircraft gun in the place of the ‘X’ turret and with additional medium anti-aircraft guns.
• CL Superb is an addition to Mikee’s list. This ship was similar to the Swiftsure class but had different radar and more medium anti-aircraft guns.

Don S.
Last edited by Donald M. Scheef on Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:44 am, edited 2 times in total.

dattrains
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 9:50 pm
Location: Georgia

Post by dattrains »

My top 12 plus three more !

WWII France heavy cruiser Duquesne class
WWII Germany Schnellboote (E-boats)
WWII UK battleship Prince of Wales
WWII UK frigate Black Swan class
WWII UK A & E – I class destroyer leaders (Codrington, Exmouth, Faulkner, Grenville, Hardy, and Inglefield)
WWII UK MTB Vosper type
WWII USA light carrier Saipan (CVL-48) class
WWII USA aircraft carrier Yorktown (CV-5), 1942 appearance
WWII USA fast attack transport Charles Lawrence (APD-37) class (DE conversions)
WWII USA battleship Idaho (BB-42), late-war appearance
WWII Japan cargo ship Taifuki Maru type (Aden Maru)
Early Cold War Soviet cruiser Sverdlov (Projekt 68 bis) class

WWII USA escort carrier Long Island (CVE-1)
WWII UK light cruiser Coventry/Curlew (anti-aircraft conversion)
WWII USA light cruiser Worcester (CL-144) class
Don T

Mikee
E5
Posts: 145
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 3:32 am
Location: Oakland, CA

Post by Mikee »

Donald is right about the Sheffields; the CinC is not a bad substitute. I've had a set of this class since the 70s, when I was running a naval war game. Since GHQ hasn't put them on their production list, I'm reworking my old ones a bit. My Glasgow and Southampton are painted in early camo patterns, and i'm repainting the Sheffield. I'm alswo installing GHQ cranes on them, and cconsidering the possibility of replacing at least some of the ships' turrets with GHQ turrets.. It's not unlikely that, if GHQ ever does produce them, I'll pass them up because my old ones are all completed.

whoa Mohamed
E5
Posts: 414
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Central TX

Post by whoa Mohamed »

Out of honest curiosity what purpose would small combatants in this scale serve ?
Ive seen the others guys attempts at E and S boats and GHQs PT boats it just dosent seem worth while ...I can see some modern corvetts or frigates and even some of the Early WW2 british sloops and frigates but anything smaller would lack detail or am I wrong?....Mikey
every man for all mens rights
all men for every mans rights

Donald M. Scheef
E5
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 2:24 am
Location: Waukegan, Illinois USA

Post by Donald M. Scheef »

The worth of 1/2400 models of small coastal craft (such as US PT boats) depends on the interest of the buyer. I agree that in this scale, the detail is limited. On the other hand, if you are interested in playing scenarios in the English Channel, Mediterranean islands, or Phillipines, you must have models of this type.

The only boat of this type modeled by GHQ is US PT boats. I also have 1/2400 scale models of US PT boats from Viking Forge and Panzerschiffe, so my comparisons are based on these:
- GHQ USN12: 10 boats for $8.75 - by far the best quality and greatest detail
- Viking Forge: 6 boats for $5.00 - overall lower quality and some inconsistency (one is incompletely molded and unusable except for sunk/sinking
- Panzerschiffe: 3 boats on a single base for $1.50 - lowest detail but recognizable and more consistent than Viking Forge.

For other possible boats of this type that GHQ could produce:
- UK - large number of MTBs that are essentially indistinguishable from US PT boats in this scale, even if produced to GHQ quality. Smaller but still significant number of Fairmile type MTB/MGBs; these were about 30% larger and had a distinctly different look to them. Although not in my favorites list, it is close and I would puirchase a number of these if GHQ produced them.
- Germany - large number of Schnellboote ("S" boote - fast boats) that were about 30% larger than US PT boats (about the same as the UK Fairamile types but distinctly different in appearance. This type is on my favorites list.
- France - Other than some British types used by Free French, I can't find any description of French boats of this type.
- Italy - large number of MAS type that were similar in size and overall appearance to the British MTBs. Later in the war, the Italians built or obtained some based on the German Schnellboote. I might get a pack if GHQ produced it, but I'm not enthusiastic.
- Soviet Union - large number of G5 type that were smaller than the UK/types and had a distinctive whale-back deck. I might get a pack if GHQ produced it, but I'm not enthusiastic.
- Japan - large number of T23 through T39 classes similar to UK/US types in size and overall configuration. As with the US PT boats, there were many differences in detail. I might get a pack if GHQ produced it, but I'm not enthusiastic.

The bottom line; it's a matter of personal opinion.

Don S.

DAVIDNOLA62
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 1:05 am
Location: HOUSTON, TX

MTB's

Post by DAVIDNOLA62 »

Don, don't forget the Dutch, who had a small, but not insignificant number of MTB's, which at this scale would be indistinguishable from British MTB's. Also minor numbers for the Romanians, Yugoslavs, and Bulgarians, all either German or British built. The Finns also had some locally produced boats.
A PhD means you're "intelligent", but not necessarily "smart". verytinywars.blogspot.com

battlewagon
E5
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 10:57 am
Location: San Diego, CA

Post by battlewagon »

If you are running scenarios that involve combat close inshore the various MTB's / PT's etc make sense. In one of the most famous examples, American PT boats were the first to attack the Japanese in the battle of Surigao Strait.

My preference would be to review the order of battle for the fleets involved in historical battles and concentrate on producing models of the ships that are not represented by an existing kit....although I must admit that some ships that weren't in battle, or in some cases were never even built just look cool.

GHQ...you keep making them and I'll keep buying them!
Always respect the law of gross tonnage (aka "bigger boat wins")

ww2navyguy
E5
Posts: 340
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2005 8:21 am
Location: Sunny Florida

Post by ww2navyguy »

battlewagon wrote:If you are running scenarios that involve combat close inshore the various MTB's / PT's etc make sense. In one of the most famous examples, American PT boats were the first to attack the Japanese in the battle of Surigao Strait.

My preference would be to review the order of battle for the fleets involved in historical battles and concentrate on producing models of the ships that are not represented by an existing kit....although I must admit that some ships that weren't in battle, or in some cases were never even built just look cool.

GHQ...you keep making them and I'll keep buying them!
And yes...we still need a model of IJN BB Fuso too. Still seems like no company makes a correct BB Fuso in 2400 scale. :(

However, I did like your conversion of BB Fuso using the GHQ BB Yamashiro model that you posted a while ago in this forum. :D

DarrylH
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 8:33 am
Location: Las Vegas, NV

Post by DarrylH »

Donald M. Scheef wrote:The worth of 1/2400 models of small coastal craft (such as US PT boats) depends on the interest of the buyer. I agree that in this scale, the detail is limited. On the other hand, if you are interested in playing scenarios in the English Channel, Mediterranean islands, or Phillipines, you must have models of this type.

The only boat of this type modeled by GHQ is US PT boats. I also have 1/2400 scale models of US PT boats from Viking Forge and Panzerschiffe, so my comparisons are based on these:
- GHQ USN12: 10 boats for $8.75 - by far the best quality and greatest detail
- Viking Forge: 6 boats for $5.00 - overall lower quality and some inconsistency (one is incompletely molded and unusable except for sunk/sinking
- Panzerschiffe: 3 boats on a single base for $1.50 - lowest detail but recognizable and more consistent than Viking Forge.

For other possible boats of this type that GHQ could produce:
- UK - large number of MTBs that are essentially indistinguishable from US PT boats in this scale, even if produced to GHQ quality. Smaller but still significant number of Fairmile type MTB/MGBs; these were about 30% larger and had a distinctly different look to them. Although not in my favorites list, it is close and I would puirchase a number of these if GHQ produced them.
- Germany - large number of Schnellboote ("S" boote - fast boats) that were about 30% larger than US PT boats (about the same as the UK Fairamile types but distinctly different in appearance. This type is on my favorites list.
- France - Other than some British types used by Free French, I can't find any description of French boats of this type.
- Italy - large number of MAS type that were similar in size and overall appearance to the British MTBs. Later in the war, the Italians built or obtained some based on the German Schnellboote. I might get a pack if GHQ produced it, but I'm not enthusiastic.
- Soviet Union - large number of G5 type that were smaller than the UK/types and had a distinctive whale-back deck. I might get a pack if GHQ produced it, but I'm not enthusiastic.
- Japan - large number of T23 through T39 classes similar to UK/US types in size and overall configuration. As with the US PT boats, there were many differences in detail. I might get a pack if GHQ produced it, but I'm not enthusiastic.

The bottom line; it's a matter of personal opinion.

Don S.
Since the Italians' MAS boats were a significant factor in Pedestal and probably other Malta convoys, and since, like their WWI predecessors, they did well against major combatants (taking out at least one Town class CL, HMS Manchester IIRC), I'm a little more enthusiastic about them. The Japanese never really used their MTBs in their intended role, and that's pretty well true of the Soviets as well, so neither would rank very high on my wish list. E-boats and RN MTB/MGBs are another matter entirely, of course--would love to see them done fairly soon.
Last edited by DarrylH on Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

battlewagon
E5
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 10:57 am
Location: San Diego, CA

Post by battlewagon »

ww2navyguy wrote:
battlewagon wrote:If you are running scenarios that involve combat close inshore the various MTB's / PT's etc make sense. In one of the most famous examples, American PT boats were the first to attack the Japanese in the battle of Surigao Strait.

My preference would be to review the order of battle for the fleets involved in historical battles and concentrate on producing models of the ships that are not represented by an existing kit....although I must admit that some ships that weren't in battle, or in some cases were never even built just look cool.

GHQ...you keep making them and I'll keep buying them!
And yes...we still need a model of IJN BB Fuso too. Still seems like no company makes a correct BB Fuso in 2400 scale. :(

However, I did like your conversion of BB Fuso using the GHQ BB Yamashiro model that you posted a while ago in this forum. :D
Many thanks...that was a fun project. I have started hacking up an IJN Takeo kit to create the IJN Maya circa 1944. I will write that up and post photos when I am farther along.
Always respect the law of gross tonnage (aka "bigger boat wins")

battlewagon
E5
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 10:57 am
Location: San Diego, CA

Post by battlewagon »

ww2navyguy wrote:
battlewagon wrote:If you are running scenarios that involve combat close inshore the various MTB's / PT's etc make sense. In one of the most famous examples, American PT boats were the first to attack the Japanese in the battle of Surigao Strait.

My preference would be to review the order of battle for the fleets involved in historical battles and concentrate on producing models of the ships that are not represented by an existing kit....although I must admit that some ships that weren't in battle, or in some cases were never even built just look cool.

GHQ...you keep making them and I'll keep buying them!
And yes...we still need a model of IJN BB Fuso too. Still seems like no company makes a correct BB Fuso in 2400 scale. :(

However, I did like your conversion of BB Fuso using the GHQ BB Yamashiro model that you posted a while ago in this forum. :D
Many thanks...that was a fun project. I have started hacking up an IJN Takeo kit to create the IJN Maya circa 1944. I will write that up and post photos when I am farther along.
Always respect the law of gross tonnage (aka "bigger boat wins")

Mickel
E5
Posts: 326
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 2:00 pm
Location: Adelaide, Australia

Post by Mickel »

Quick question - WW-I RN ships boats. I'm getting close to the end of painting 1st CS, with the four ACRs. I have been working on the assumption that these things got painted grey once peacetime niceties were no longer being observed. Would this be right, or should they still be white & teak?

Thanks


Mike

Post Reply